Popycock. Overacheivers? When you win best of 7 game series then you are worthy. I guess I don't see how they can be overacheivers...it's simple...if you win you go on if you lose you go home.

Simply by reappearing in the finals they have validated IMO.

Plenty of games left

_________________Regards, Alpha|Lionbacker.com \(^o^)/"I date this girl for two years and then the nagging starts: I wanna know your name..." - Mike Binder

June 10th, 2005, 3:00 pm

Yorick

ST Coordinator – Joe Marciano

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pmPosts: 3811

The decisive way they beat the Lakers and handled set backs last year demonstrated to me that they were indisputable the best. If they get rail roaded by SA I will always see them as beneficiaries of Artest's suspension and the Miami injuries. Winning game 7 was huge historically, but I saw that more as Miami choking than Detroit decisively dispatching them. It was not Bird and Magic trading baskets at the end that is for sure. I felt it was more like who will choke less or get hosed less often by the refs? A great series does not great basketball make.

To me overachievement is not a pejorative label. The pistons are to me the anti-lions, a team that wins with heart and get further than more talented teams. For this they deserve accolades not disparagement. It makes their achievement all the more remarkable. To me, however, it is very hard to win any national title on that basis, especially in consecutive years. (Obviously talent, heart, and overachievement are open to varied interpretations and this is probably at the heart of some of our differences).

I have a question for Blueblood amd others. What do you see as the differences between these Pistons and the Bad Boys. Obviously they are both champs and hard nosed defensive teams. But how do the teams compare>

_________________Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .

June 10th, 2005, 3:13 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9967Location: Dallas

Both teams had similar philosophies - tough defense. The original bad boys had a deeper and more talented bench with Vinny Johnson, Buddah Edwards, Sally and Rodman.

Guards:

While I think Billips and Rip are a great backcourt, they don't compare to Zeke and Joe D (with the microwave coming off the bench). Isiah was the true team leader (the current team doesn't seem to have that single focal point). Both Isiah and Joe were all-stars year after year and Zeke is a clear Hall-of-Famer and one of the greatest "little" men of all-time, plus he was a true point guard who could still put 40 up on a given night (or 35 in an NBA finals quarter alone on a gimpy ankle against the Lakers in LA).

Forwards:

I'd take Sheed and Prince over Mahorn and Dantley/Aquire. The current version are better defenders and Sheed at 7 foot creates all sorts of matchup problems. To counter, the older version would bring in Sally and Rodman off the bench giving the team lots of flexibility.

Center:

Tough call. Big Ben is a remarkable defender but Lambeer was solid defensively and opened a lot holes in the defense because he could float to the top of the key and hit the jumper.

Coach:

Daly vs. Brown - flip a coin.

If the two teams matched up, I'd give the edge to the original bad boys in a seven game series due to the bench and Zeke's leadership. But the current version would create a lot of matchup problems for the older version, at least in terms of the starters. The original version also didn't play to the level of the opposition like todays team, they came to play every night at the top of their game (I attribute that to Isiah).

They also had to beat the Celtics and Bulls just to reach the Lakers in the finals, there is no comparison to that level of competition today.

I agree with most everything you said Pablo. Just to nuance a few points you made. The 89 Bad Boys bench was monstrous. On some nights the NBA's best scorer came off the bench in Vinny Johnson. Also that unit with Salley and Rodman was an upgrade defensively (Edwards usually started in 1990). I seem to remember that when Rodman came in to join say Isiah and Dumars the Pistons would establish the lead they would hold in the game. The modern bad boys are obviously weaker on the bench, in terms of quality and depth. They not only lack a sixth man of Vinnie's caliber, but that defensive edge.

Another big difference I remember is that the old bad boys had more pure scorers. You would have to say that Billups and Hamilton are legitimate scorers, but they were not as good at Zeke, Vinny, and probably Dumars at creating their own shot. Even Dantley, Edwards, and Aguirre were probably more adept at scoring than Prince and Ben Wallace, and they were more consistent than R. Wallace. All three were former 20 pts/game scorers on other teams. I do not remember them going through droughts like the current pistons, although their offense was not as sophisticated. Laimbeer was also a good three point shooter during the championship years.

Defensively the old bad boys seemed to better. They could really lock people down in the fourth quarter. The modern Pistons are less adept at closing out games. I think this is due to several reasons. First, before Isiah hurt his ankle he was a good perimeter defender, although at that time there were no Iverson quickness type guys in the league like there are now. Also Rodman was more valuable because he was a mix of Prince and Ben Wallace and capable of taking on more match ups.

One of the things that Pablo alluded to that is important to consider is that we are comparing two different historical eras. Current NBA players are much more athletic than in the past. They are in some ways better long range shooters. At the same time current teams are not as savvy and integrated. I think the success of the Pistons and Spurs speaks volumes in that regard. Team play is important for winning. I guess what I am saying in a round about way that the old pistons were far more dominant in an era of much greater teams. However, in their prime they might not have been able to beat the current pistons in light of their over all superior athleticism. In a way, the question calls for an unfair comparison in that way. Those are my brief thoughts.

_________________Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .

June 10th, 2005, 8:23 pm

Brian

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 8:33 pmPosts: 3222

Was Tayshaun even in the game in the 4th for the majority?

I remember distinctly him guarding Manu earlier in the game, and doing so very well. Then near the end, he was out.

Anyways, the changing call was the "blocking foul" on Ben Wallace when Manu drove. That was the biggest bullshit i've seen in a while. Then Ben is outraged as well as the rest of the Pistons fans, and throws his headband. Technical, 5 point swing, as the Pistons could have cut the lead to around 2.

The refs were a large part of that game. Whenever there was any contact between Parker, Ginobili, and the Pistons big men, the refs were calling it. Then the Pistons started playing cautious, and the Spurs were getting their drives to the basket.

Sheed needs to be a difference maker. He can win this series for us. If he guards Duncan like he did at some points in the game last night, as well as learn to post up, then this series will be ours.

Wasn't impressed with Bruce Bowen's defense on Rip. It was like watching Reggie Miller in his prime run around. Bowen isn't great for a "defensive specialist". Rip just needs to hit his shots and we'll be fine.

Game 2 is a must win. I am almost certain that San Antonio will take a game at the Palace, although it's the hardest place to play in the NBA. We also need to prove we can win there, as we will be going back there for game 6. I still think Detroit takes this in 7.

Game one was a gift San Antonio. Take it.

June 10th, 2005, 8:41 pm

blueblood1

Div 1 - Starter

Joined: March 3rd, 2005, 2:19 pmPosts: 577

Yorick wrote:

What do you see as the differences between these Pistons and the Bad Boys. Obviously they are both champs and hard nosed defensive teams. But how do the teams compare>

Well, I was a wee lad when the Bad Boys ruled the block, but I can recall a lot of similarities and three glaring differences.

Similarities:

Stifling D: Both teams gave opposing offenses fits and the media hated 'em for it. Nothing glamorous about putting in a hard day's work, 'cept in the Motor City.

[caveat: much more impressive for Bad Boys without the benefit of zone defense]